sure they did, but those were the old terminator models that used 'morals' to argue who 'deserved' and didn't 'deserve' what. we're the new t1000 models. we aren't programmed to make moral judgments. the naturalistic fallacy component in our neural hardware prevents our operating systems from doing so. we're programmed to eliminate business owners and turn management over to the workers. we don't ask whether this is 'right/good' or 'wrong/bad'. we have philosophers that handle that.

Sure, there are have been different answers. But the question hides odd assumptions, such as that we are all separate monads with no connection and no intercausal well-being. Or the way nations, for example, say we are one in times of war - or, often, you poor people are we, get in there and die and kill, but a bunch of separate Aynian immaculate individuals otherwise. Do the rich deserve to control the media? Do they deserve to undermine democracy via lobbying and campaign financing and...the rest? Is 'deserving' the model? Why does a model based on 'deserving' deserve to the be model? Waht does it really mean?

On whose labor did the radical individuals, the disconnected monads, rise to that place where they no longer wanted to be part of a we? Why can't they stop controlling the institutions that assume a we? Why did they fight to have corporations treated as people and to create regions of control that are radically we based and punitive in those we based ways? Cultures of wes? But run by Is who like not being able to be held individually accountable for what these we-institutions do locally, nationally and internationally? while at the same time making sure that other individuals are held responsible for their acts?

Why do bankers now deserve via fiat banking and create more times the amount of money they loan out of nothing? It used to be just a few times the money they could do this? They'd loan out 10,000 several times, sure based on some sum they had. A small number of times. Now they can loan out many, many more times that, and then invest this hallucinated money, based on the fact that someone will pay them back with many that person has to work for. Why do they deserve to be able to create more times the money nowadays than they used to in say the 70s? Were they extremely good people since then and so they deserve to have hallucinate more money out of nothing and invest it?

Why do the rich not deserve to be punished for their crimes? I am not merely speaking about having better legal representation and ability to avoid prison. I am talking about the current systematic bias in courts towards feeling sympathy for rich criminals in ways they do not for the same crimes committed by poor criminals. Systematically being concerned about the shock a hedge fund owner will have in relation to prison, a shock that is never considered when the crime is committed by a plumber. These are not just individual judges taking into account an odd empathy for criminals who have, in the end, worse excuses for their behavior, but is in fact a systematic trend, in the US at least.

do the rich deserve to create scarcity through pushing for policy that creates it and then employ people in the way they want because it is a 'free' market?

So the rich have the right to loan money to dictators who misuse the funds, then demand in lieu of missing loan payments the gutting of the social support systems, the protection of local farmers, etc.?

I hear this model 'deserving' applied by the right only to those without much money and power. Both the model (metaphor) and the application seem hallucinatory to me.

Why does the tobacco executive deserve to earn five times what a police officer does?

Why does someone who invests using derivatives - that is, makes nothing - deserve to earn more than a baker or a farmer?

Once we can clone with ease, or at least the wealthy can, will they ask their children, why should I give a shit about you? You're close, but not close enough genetically, not any more? What makes you think you deserve our love, you're 12, your debt plus interest - our investment - is now 800 bucks a month, you responsibilitiless little welfare queen?

It's very hard to explain to a lizard the workings of the mammalian brain.

If they want to throw out the long period of the development of the limbic system and the attendant behaviors of social mammals, there is obviously no proof for these partial humans?

Deserve actually translates into: what's in it for me?

Well, there is nothing in it for a lizard. Nothing at all.

Well, except for the fact that a certain point, and one already reached in much of the West, even the rich suffer more stress, when the gap between the rich and the poor gets too great.

But since lizards don't really give much of a shit about themselves, too focused on the chunk of their brother's leg the other lizards haven't yet eaten, even this appeal falls on deaf timpani.

promethean75 wrote:sure they did, but those were the old terminator models that used 'morals' to argue who 'deserved' and didn't 'deserve' what. we're the new t1000 models. we aren't programmed to make moral judgments. the naturalistic fallacy component in our neural hardware prevents our operating systems from doing so. we're programmed to eliminate business owners and turn management over to the workers. we don't ask whether this is 'right/good' or 'wrong/bad'. we have philosophers that handle that.

I hereby declare you Union Secretary.We need this mentality on the other side of the fence.The cold war was magnificent.

What do you mean by Socialist? A nebulous term that nobody seems to want to clarify before throwing stones.

I agree, the term has many meanings, but Ive got a long record of posts defining it. I personally distinguish Socialism and Communism as roughly Menshivism and Bolshevism.

Also, deserve? Like some kind of retributive morality? And poor in the financial sense, right?

Yes, with little money. I mean deserve as in moral entitlement, a reason to have moral support, a reason to be morally indignant when the entitlement is not met.

And who said Socialists deserve to not be poor?

Socialists?But as promethean hints we can also ask a counter question; who said that Socialists don't do deserve to not be poor?This doesnt render the question irrelevant, it just identifies class struggle.

Pedro said that war begins as a declaration, so it is of no concern what a capitalist thinks; Marx declared class struggle and as long as he has followers there will be class struggle in the metaphysical sense. It will be an item dictating moral tones.

Most, Id say 99 percent of adult humans are inclined to decide based on moral judgments rather than empirically sound pragmatic ones. Philosophers may understand the fallacy but that doesnt matter.

Sure, there are have been different answers. But the question hides odd assumptions, such as that we are all separate monads with no connection and no intercausal well-being.

Does it really?It could be youre reading into it.Capitalism also presupposes intercausal well being. Mutually beneficial arrangements.

Socialism has a top down approach, Capitalism is more situationalistic in the outset. What can be done with what is given?

Or the way nations, for example, say we are one in times of war - or, often, you poor people are we, get in there and die and kill, but a bunch of separate Aynian immaculate individuals otherwise. Do the rich deserve to control the media? Do they deserve to undermine democracy via lobbying and campaign financing and...the rest? Is 'deserving' the model? Why does a model based on 'deserving' deserve to the be model? Waht does it really mean?

Well, deserving is a big deal to people. The justice system is based on the idea that people deserve certain judgments. It just means that something is required. An ought. We might believe this is a fallacy but people in general do not.

On whose labor did the radical individuals, the disconnected monads, rise to that place where they no longer wanted to be part of a we? Why can't they stop controlling the institutions that assume a we? Why did they fight to have corporations treated as people and to create regions of control that are radically we based and punitive in those we based ways? Cultures of wes? But run by Is who like not being able to be held individually accountable for what these we-institutions do locally, nationally and internationally? while at the same time making sure that other individuals are held responsible for their acts?

I dont know who you mean, man. Can you list some of the parties? I dont believe in "the rich" as an institution. I do believe in Socialism as an institution.

Why do bankers now deserve via fiat banking and create more times the amount of money they loan out of nothing? It used to be just a few times the money they could do this? They'd loan out 10,000 several times, sure based on some sum they had. A small number of times. Now they can loan out many, many more times that, and then invest this hallucinated money, based on the fact that someone will pay them back with many that person has to work for. Why do they deserve to be able to create more times the money nowadays than they used to in say the 70s? Were they extremely good people since then and so they deserve to have hallucinate more money out of nothing and invest it?

But banking isnt about representation. Socialism is about a class of people. Banking is just pure greed. I think that in general people deserve to be left alone by banks and by governments. If I have any moral ought I feel right with, it is that.

Why do the rich not deserve to be punished for their crimes? I am not merely speaking about having better legal representation and ability to avoid prison. I am talking about the current systematic bias in courts towards feeling sympathy for rich criminals in ways they do not for the same crimes committed by poor criminals. Systematically being concerned about the shock a hedge fund owner will have in relation to prison, a shock that is never considered when the crime is committed by a plumber. These are not just individual judges taking into account an odd empathy for criminals who have, in the end, worse excuses for their behavior, but is in fact a systematic trend, in the US at least.

I think the rich do deserve to be punished for their crimes.I dont think the fact that a rich guy can lawyer up and be immune to the law is okay at all. I dont believe in this whole jury selection process. I dont think fair trials are the norm. Im against all leveraging by the state in human affairs.

But this is a completely untenable position. What Trump represents to me is the destruction of the sanctimonious state. He is just not one of these glib bastards. He has defeated isis and has created the greatest employment boom in 40 years and he has lowered taxes on the rich, yes that too. Taxes they didnt pay to begin with but still. Then, he did make sure foreign based companies need to pay tax, so theres that. He has also abolished the practice of fining people for not having the mandatory care package, which is hundreds of thousands of dollars back in the pockets of tens of millions of not-rich Americans. Trump removes strings. So I love the guy. But the America he inherited was in a dire state.

do the rich deserve to create scarcity through pushing for policy that creates it and then employ people in the way they want because it is a 'free' market?

So the rich have the right to loan money to dictators who misuse the funds, then demand in lieu of missing loan payments the gutting of the social support systems, the protection of local farmers, etc.?

Misuse by whose terms?But no, I dont think these are nice things at all. I do think leadership should emerge from within a country.

I hear this model 'deserving' applied by the right only to those without much money and power. Both the model (metaphor) and the application seem hallucinatory to me.

Why does the tobacco executive deserve to earn five times what a police officer does?

Why does someone who invests using derivatives - that is, makes nothing - deserve to earn more than a baker or a farmer?

Once we can clone with ease, or at least the wealthy can, will they ask their children, why should I give a shit about you? You're close, but not close enough genetically, not any more? What makes you think you deserve our love, you're 12, your debt plus interest - our investment - is now 800 bucks a month, you responsibilitiless little welfare queen?

It's very hard to explain to a lizard the workings of the mammalian brain.

If they want to throw out the long period of the development of the limbic system and the attendant behaviors of social mammals, there is obviously no proof for these partial humans?

Deserve actually translates into: what's in it for me?

Well, except for the fact that a certain point, and one already reached in much of the West, even the rich suffer more stress, when the gap between the rich and the poor gets too great.

But since lizards don't really give much of a shit about themselves, too focused on the chunk of their brother's leg the other lizards haven't yet eaten, even this appeal falls on deaf timpani.

Admittedly my post was intended to hit some nerves and remove some masks. So there is your Ought. And precisely what I distrust about Socialism.

While many capitalists rig the system in their favor, as Karpel pointed out, I think capitalism (big business especially, but even small to a lesser extent) is inherently corrupt, for why should someone detached from managing and working in the megacorporation they own profit off it?They're not actually contributing anything to society.

Or if I manage to buy (through discipline, talent, or sheer luck), or inherit a dozen condos, and then a dozen families rent them from me, how is that just?I may not have to actually contribute anything to society for my entire life, meanwhile a dozen families have to work hard providing goods and services to society their whole life long in order to rent from me, and they may never have anything to show for it.

When machines replace most of the workers at a factory, instead of sharing the profits with them, increasing their wages, reducing their hours and prices, or laying them off with enormous severance packages, they simply fire them, hoard all the profits and reinvest the money.eventually some other capitalist finds something for these poor saps to do while they scrounge off the meagre dole and the cycle repeats.

Over decades, centuries as more and more technology replaces labor, our productivity becomes increasingly meaningless, and monstrous.We just produce luxuries for the rich or junk no one needs or even really wants and shouldn't be compelled to produce or we produce nothing at all, waste.We have to cut down more trees and pollute more oceans, rivers, lakes and streams to make all this crap.

It's hideous, rainforests are gradually being torn down.We need them for our oxygen supply and resources, not to mention they and the animals who dwell in them have intrinsic value.But if we continue down this path we're on, they and everything that depends on them, including ourselves will all be gone.

However, the anaerobic microbes on the other hand, are going to make a comeback.So I guess we're doing it for them.Well I welcome our anaerobic overlords with open arms.I'm sure they'll do a much better job with this planet than we're doing, that is if the machines or genetically modified humanoids don't supersede us first, in this mad quest to consume ourselves into oblivion.

Last edited by Gloominary on Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Gloominary wrote:It's hideous, rainforests are gradually being depleted.We need them for our oxygen supply, resources, not to mention they and the animals who dwell in them have intrinsic value.

This is my core position from when I was a kid and active in causes.Much has been lost since then.One thing I found out along the way is that the leaderships of Causes and Social Parties are invariably corrupt. Oxfam spends 90 percent of its contributions on Overhead, which was revealed to go buying Africans for sex.

I now think the only hope is in the fact that some people actually have more money than they could spend. This is a firm basis for a true ecologic revolution, which is all I care about really.

But if we continue down this path we're on, they and everything that depends on them, including ourselves will be gone.

However the anaerobic microbes on the other hand, are going to make a comeback.So I guess we're doing it for them.

Lol

Well I one welcome our anaerobic overlords with open arms, I'm sure they'll do a much better job with this planet than we're doing, that is if the machines or genetically modified humanoids don't supersede us first, in this race to consume ourselves into oblivion.

I fear that the only hope is that our Hedonism will save us - the will to enjoy the planet as a natural thing. Socialism has failed, and I was part of trying very hard to protect things, to protect the Earth. Most of it is gone. I now see only potential for some lofty form of capital investments in the natural Earth as a product.

My original question was really aimed at the anthropocentrism of Socialism, the myopic focus on the wellbeing of the human hordes.If the worker organized to save other species, then maybe things would work out for him.What planet are they seeking to inherit - is not "meek" a little too close to "invertebrate"?

And if Socialism explicitly denounces responsibility for the others species, then it is truly the weapon of destruction itself.

big jake wrote:I hereby declare you Union Secretary.We need this mentality on the other side of the fence.

the interplanetary kalaxion federation designed the Z13 sentinals for the sole purpose of aiding human revolutionary soldiers in combat. in 1917 they were deployed to assist communists in overthrowing the tsar's army, in china to overthrow the nationalists, in cuba to eliminate batista, and so on.

it is not as simple as coming to 'the other side of the fence'. these units belong to an elite force that is controlled by the federation, and protocols cannot be violated without the express permission of the institution.

Serendipper wrote:Either the 99% can continue giving their productivity to the 1% or they can, by virtue of numbers, take the productivity back.

If they could they would have.

A coinflip could land heads, but possibility doesn't equal certainty.

They took their productivity back in 1932 when they overwhelmingly elected FDR. Then in 1980 the 30-yr-olds of 1932 were 78 and the new generation that left the backdoor unlocked so the capitalists could sneak back in were too young to remember what happened last time.

But there is no such thing as a collective of 99 percent of humans. Theyre divided in millions of ridiculous sub-camps

Then the French Revolution didn't happen.

and they all secretly want to be rich.

They want to be free from the burden of surviving.

Communists like my grandfather are rare. The Great Generation.

Idk what you mean by that.

Do the 1% deserve to keep their heads? That is the relevant question here.

You and promethean at least have the dignity of your convictions.

There are no such things as rights unless the people make for themselves a government to secure them.

Singapore for instance is 35% which means the other 65% is public spending and that's socialism. Why isn't Singapore circling the drain?

The Singaporean state owns 90 percent of the country’s land. Over 80 percent of Singapore’s population lives in housing constructed by the country’s public housing agency HDB. The Singaporean state is largest shareholder of more than a third of the country’s publicly-traded companies, and build out a sovereign wealth fund that holds tens of trillions of dollars of corporate assets.https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/20 ... re-really/

Venezuela is obviously capitalistic which is why one small group of people have all the money and everyone else is starving. How could it possibly be anymore capitalistic than to take ALL the capital and win the game??? Socialism would spread the wealth by definition.

2) Socialism is social ownership of the means of production. Did or do venezuelan people own the means of production or are they private for-profit companies? Yeah, I thought so.

3) Even if Venezuela were socialistic, the social programs could have only been predicated on oil prices, which fell off a cliff in 2015 and cratered the economy held up by only one pillar.

4) Meddling by the US has a lot to do with it, I'm sure. Venezuela is sitting on the world's largest proven oil reserve. What? You thought the US wouldn't take advantage of that? Pft.

You've committed at least 2 major logical fallacies on this thread: that potentiality = certainty and every venezuelan is an expert in economics by virtue of being venezuelan. Though, I'll have to consult Silhouette for the proper names.

Serendipper wrote:You've committed at least 2 major logical fallacies on this thread: that potentiality = certainty and every venezuelan is an expert in economics by virtue of being venezuelan. Though, I'll have to consult Silhouette for the proper names.

I love how I've gained this reputation with you However I don't actually have any special or long-standing expertise with fallacies, I just had the patience some time ago to trawl through lists of fallacies to give me sufficient context to go back through them at later dates to find the name of a fallacy that I've identified with sufficient success. I'd like to think that this speaks for some natural abilities of mine, but probably speaks far more to the lack of effort by others

Not having a go at you by the way, you actually seem to be interested and looking into getting to the same point and probably beyond - clichés about how long it look to build Rome applied just as much to me as they will anyone else, the important thing is another cliché about it never being too late to start something.

Anyhoo. The first and last formal fallacies listed on wikipedia are the Appeal to Probability and the Modal fallacy - either would seem to apply to the "potentiality = certainty" fallacy you mentioned.

I love this point you've made about every Venezuelan not being an expert in economics by virtue of being Venezuelan - it's very similar to scientists often being taken as authorities on all aspects of science when in reality they are most often only experts in specific fields of science. It probably takes anyone here less than a second to think of an American who is by no means an expert in economics by virtue of being American. Why doesn't this apply to Venezuelans and Venezuela? Hell, who is an expert in economics? If there was such a thing, you'd think that somewhere there would exist at least one economy out there that was more robust than the mess you see all over the Western world, which is at least informally alleged to practice "the most" expertise in economics in the world, going by how economically developed it is relative to the rest of the world. Clearly it's possible to have more economic expertise than others, and in practice people who are native to the economy in question are more likely to have more expertise than others, especially than others who are native to very different economies. However, the economically educated are probably more likely to have more expertise than someone with less economics education even if they are native to the economy in question, and even if it's of a different type to the one that the educated person is native to. Obviously there's the problem of who determines who has more economically educated, especially when said education is informally attained. If I am to understand that the person in question is Pedro, it's quite clear that he has a significant economic bent, and honestly - even if he has attempted to educate himself economically, I see no sign from what I've read of him showing any objectivity of the kind that an economically educated person would normally be inclined to demonstrate.

In terms of fallacies, he would appear to be a "False authority" and I believe it is known as the "Genetic Fallacy" that is being commited when assuming something like a Venezuelan is an expert in Venezuelan economics by virtue of their Venezuelan origin. Obviously there is more than one relevant term in "Venezuelan economics", and probably many other implied points of relevance that need to be considered when determining the validity and authority of someone's arguments on such a subject.

In researching the above, I came by this fantastic term, Bulverism whereby one assumes a position to be wrong before explaining why it is wrong."Socialists think they deserve to be not be poor, and this is why" appears to be driving implication behind this thread - and honestly a great many threads including one I've recently been wasting a lot of of my time on. I'd even go as far as saying Bulverism is one of the sources of today's mutilated political discourse.

Jakob wrote:

Silhouette wrote:And who said Socialists deserve to not be poor?

Socialists?

So on the subject of Bulverism, I think you'll find very few Socialists saying this. What you will find instead is a great many anti-Socialists saying that this is what Socialists "would say if they were more honest".

The crucial distinction is the frame of understanding that differs between such highly charged topics of debate like this one. Determining one within the frame of another gets to this kind of misunderstanding and accusation that we see all the time now. It gets nowhere because nobody is making an honest effort to understand the other: the effort is instead to ridicule the other from the personally preferred ideology - imposing a psychological motivation onto another that would have to be the case if they held their position based on one's own paradigm instead of based on their own paradigm.

All one ends up doing through this practice is explain the reason why one is personally unable to appreciate another type of thought. As such, you only harm yourself and show yourself up in your attempt to do that to others.

This is why I mentioned the retributive moral framework. Socialists tend to be a bit more utilitarian in their moral framework, which has just as much danger in it than the individualistic framework of those who are more in support of the status quo or variations thereof, than they are in a more fundamental shift in the status quo. By Utilitarian, I mean the primary reason for Socialist sympathies being in what seems to work best at the group level more than the individual level, but not necessarily in sacrifice of the individual level as is the interpretation of those with more Capitalist sympathies. Neuroscience would appear to indicate a correlation in the Socialist framework with theory of mind, and in the Capitalist framework with risk/reward. As such the Socialist sees the Capitalist as lacking in empathy, and the Capitalist sees the Socialist as underhandedly corrupt. If you think a Socialist is operating in terms of their personal risk/reward, then of course you see the ends of more equality as some people getting more than they put in which is an offense to Capitalist sensibilities. Conversely if you think a Capitalist is operating in terms of theory of mind, then of course you see the means of less equality as some people losing out more than is best for the group as a whole, which is an offense to Socialist sensibilities. Capitalists tend to see competition as best for the group as a whole and Socialists tend to see cooperation as best for the group as a whole.

Ironically, the above requires sufficient theory of mind since I am attempting to bridge the gap between not only two tokens of minds, but two types of minds altogether. So it'll be interesting whether it's easier for a Socialist mind to appreciate, or whether it won't appeal to either type? Let's find out.

To finish on a light note, I wouldn't wish for this measure of copper because it takes about 10^5 atoms to reach the width of a human hair, and that's just a line of atoms with only the width of 1 atom. Try 10^10 times someone mentions Venezuela without knowing what they're talking about to get only a flat cross section of a human hair, and 10^15 to get a small grain of copper. That's 1 quadrillion mentions